Embedded Files
Order 33 of the C. P. C. would apply to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals
Order 33 of the C. P. C. would apply to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals
Approve the reasoning of the High Court of Gujarat to hold that Order 33 of the C. P. C. would apply to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals which have the trappings, of a Civil Court.
State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi (1979 Acc CJ 205) : (AIR 1979 SC 855)
Order 1. Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was competent to implead parties
Order 1. Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was competent to implead parties
Contention that under Order 1. Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was competent to implead parties in order to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle alia the questions involved in the clam - Upheld.
Union of India v. P. Kailasam (1974 Acc CJ 488 Mad.)
For all intents and purposes the Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court discharging the functions in the same manner as would have been done by a Civil Court.
For all intents and purposes the Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court discharging the functions in the same manner as would have been done by a Civil Court.
While Section 110 of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Section 110-C (2) of the Act confers on the Claims Tribunal all the powers of a Civil Judge for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents. Rule 21 of the Rules also makes certain provisions of the Code of Civil P. C., as far as may be, applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. It is, therefore, clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted with respect to the claims for compensation, and the Claims Tribunal constituted for the purpose of discharging the duties which otherwise would have ordinarily fallen on the Civil Court. For all intents and purposes the Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court discharging the functions in the same manner as would have been done by a Civil Court. No doubt, the provisions which we have already noticed in the Act and the Rules are silent about the competence of the Claims Tribunal to implead parties; It has, however, to be noticed that there is no prohibition against the Tribunal exercising the power of impleading parties
1980 SCeJ 002 (Ker.).) Annamma Philip v. Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode and Ors, 1981 ACJ 25
Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. does not in terms apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, there is no prohibition in resorting to the principles contained therein.
Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. does not in terms apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, there is no prohibition in resorting to the principles contained therein.
While considering the provisions of Order 22, C.P.C.. the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that though Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. does not in terms apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, there is no prohibition in resorting to the principles contained therein. The technicalities of that rule are not to be taken note of by the Tribunal and it is only the spirit that has to be applied with the object of accuring the ends of justice.
New India Assurance Co, Ltd., New Delhi v. Punjab Roadways, Ambala City 1964 PLR 156
Provisions of the Civil P.C. as such are not applicable though its principles are often resorted to in regulating the proceedings by the Tribunal
Provisions of the Civil P.C. as such are not applicable though its principles are often resorted to in regulating the proceedings by the Tribunal
The consistent view of this Court has been that the provisions of the Civil P.C. as such are not applicable though its principles are often resorted to in regulating the proceedings by the Tribunal. Consequently, even though the Tribunal would be entitled to implead the legal representatives of the deceased claimant or of the owner or the driver but it cannot be said that an application to bring on record the legal representatives would be the one filed under the Civil P.C. The appeal being a rehearing of the claim and continuation of the original proceedings, the procedural limitations on the powers of the appellate Court would be co-extensive with those of the Tribunal. The moment it is held that the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased owner in appeal is not an application under the Civil P.C., Article 120 would not govern the same.
Petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C is maintainable
Petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C is maintainable
2nd respondent in the man M.C.O.P. Petition filed a petition to implead two persons as parties to these proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. According to the petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent in main M.C.O.P. the vehicle in question was already transferred in the name of S.Muthusamy prior to the accident and the said Muthusamy in turn transferred the vehicle to one Vasudevan. But the fact remains that the registration certificate still stands in the name of the petitioner herein. By way of caution the petitioner herein filed the above said petition for impleading the above said two persons. In case if compensation is awarded the claimants must know who is the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. In case if the transfer is held to be valid, then the proposed parties would be liable to pay the compensation. As otherwise the petitioner herein would be liable to pay the compensation. Under these circumstances on a careful consideration of the facts to arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncements sited supra, I am of the opinion that the petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C is maintainable and the proposed parties should be impleaded as parties to the main M.A.C.T.
1996 SCeJ 003 (Mad.) Dr. N. Marichamy vs K. Subburaj And Eleven Ors. , 1998 ACJ 1085,
Report abuse